posed from the patriarchate of Constantinople, was, on appeal, restored to his see by authority of pope Inno cent. Answer. Chrysostom wrote, not only to the bishop of Rome, but to those of Milan and Aquileia, requesting them to declare that the proceedings against him were unjust and null, and not to withdraw their communion from him. Innocentius however did not pretend to annul the sentence, but only required that the cause should be reheard in a synod composed of eastern and western bishops; and that in the mean time Chrysostom should be restored to his church provisionally '. This was merely an act of christian charity, not of coercive jurisdiction. (9.) The councils of Milevis and Carthage having condemned the Pelagian heresy, pope Innocentius, at the request of the African bishops, confirmed their decrees, and St. Augustine then said, "The cause is now finished, would to God that the error may also have an end!" Answer. Tournely says that the cause was indeed ended, for the Pelagians had been already condemned in the councils of Diospolis, 1 Carthage, 2 Carthage, Milevis, and Jerusalem. The bishops of Carthage and Milevis had written to Innocentius concerning this growing error. Cælestius himself had appealed to the Roman bishop; to whom also the council of Jerusalem had sent the cause of Pelagius as being a Latin; so that all that was now wanting to universal consent was the judgment of the Roman church. This being given the cause was indeed ended: not by the authority of Rome, but by that of the universal church. f Ibid. p. 727. p. 167-170. Barrow, Tournely, De Ecclesia Christi, t. ii. p. 246. (10.) Pope Cælestinus commissioned Cyril of Alexandria to depose Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople; thus exercising an undoubted act of jurisdiction over the patriarchal see of Constantinople, a see only inferior in dignity to Rome itself. Answer. The doctrine of Nestorius had been judged heretical by the synod of Rome", and Cyril of Alexandria had written to Cælestinus, that the eastern churches all condemned Nestorius, but did not excommunicate him, as they desired the concurrence of the Roman bishop'. Cælestinus in reply authorized Cyril to act for him; not in any way pretending to exclusive authority in such matters; but merely exercising the right which was vested in every catholic bishop of expelling manifest heretics from communion. (11.) When Eutyches was condemned by Flavianus and a council at Constantinople, he appealed to pope Leo, promising to obey his judgment. Leo wrote to Flavianus to demand information, and the latter, in reply, exhorted the pope to decree that the condemnation had been regular, and expressed his hopes that by this means heresy would be suppressed. Therefore both parties paid homage to the superior authority of the Roman pontiff. Answer. Eutyches appealed to the synods of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica: not to the bishop of Rome. Seeing that his appeal was not attended to, he wrote a letter of complaint to Leo of Rome, who in consequence did require from Flavianus information on this affair that he might judge it. "Hence," says Du Pin, "it is plain that Leo endeavoured to bring this cause before himself; but it is h Fleury, Hist. Eccl. lib. xxv. s. 14. i Ibid. s. 12. See Barrow, Pope's Supremacy, p. 716. altogether false, that Flavianus suspended the effect of the judgment against Eutyches, on that account." In fact his letter to Leo supposes that the judgment of the synod was conclusive, and that the Roman pontiff ought not to examine the cause again, but to add his authority to the decision'. (12.) Gregory the great exercised jurisdiction in Africa, Egypt, Illyricum, &c. Pope Theodore, in the seventh century, appointed Stephen, bishop of Dora, his vicar in Palestine: Martin II. instituted the bishop of Philadelphia his vicar in the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem. Answer. The Roman pontiffs gradually extended their power beyond its proper limits, and endeavoured to bring Illyricum, Africa, and the west, within their patriarchate. Theodore and Martin appointed those vicars in the east in time of heresy, or when the Saracens had overrun those countries. These are therefore extraordinary cases. It would take up too much space to refute all the instances which have been adduced in proof of the pretended universal jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff's during the first five centuries: but these seem to be the most usual arguments. * Du Pin, p. 215. Ibid. CHAPTER V. ON OTHER PRETENDED PRIVILEGES OF THE ROMAN SEE. In addition to the right of ordinary jurisdiction over the whole church, other privileges are claimed for the Roman pontiff by some or all of his adherents. It is asserted that he has temporal jurisdiction over the whole world; that his power in ecclesiastical affairs is absolute; that he is the fountain of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction; that his judgments in matters of faith are infallible; and that he is the centre of catholic unity, so that whoever is not of the Roman communion, cannot be a member of the true church. The four first principles are held only by the Ultramontane party in the Roman churches, and are disputed by the Gallican school the last doctrine is commonly upheld by all members of the Roman obedience. It would needlessly occupy space to enter on the question of the temporal supremacy of the Roman pontiff, which has been so well refuted by Bossuet, Tournely, and a number of other writers of their communion: nor is it necessary to refute the notion of the absolute power of the Roman pontiff in ecclesiastical affairs, which is 3 Bossuet, Defensio Declarat. b Tournely, De Ecclesia, t. ii. Cleri Gallicani. denied by the Gallican declaration of 1682, and by all its defenders; or of his being the source of all spiritual jurisdiction, from whom all bishops derive their authority; an opinion which, as Bossuet says, "began to be introduced into theology in the thirteenth century," having been "unheard of in early times." I shall therefore only briefly notice the doctrines of the papal infallibility, and the centre of unity. SECTION I. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. This doctrine is no longer the principal subject of debate between the Roman theologians and their opponents, as it was in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Delahogue defends the following position: "It may, with sound faith, and without any note of error or schism, be denied, that the Roman pontiff, even speaking ex cathedra, has the gift of infallibility". Bouvier, bishop of Mans, concludes on the same principle: "The controversy as to the infallibility of the Roman pontiff therefore leads to nothing, practically: therefore the most learned theologians have rightly been of opinion, that it ought to be abstained from, e. g. the celebrated brothers Adrian and Peter Walembourgh, in their controversies against the Protestants, Peter Veron, &c. The best refutation of this doctrine is to be found in Bossuet's "Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani." I shall merely notice a few of the arguments which may be brought against it. e 1. It has been before proved that the Roman bishop c. 11. Bossuet, ut supra, lib. viii. p. 386. e Bouvier, Tract. de Vera Ecd Delahogue, De Eccl. Christ. clesia, p. 360. |